Moore−Parker: Critical 1.

Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill

Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

Critical Thinking
Basics
Chapter
1
Johnnie Cochran
(1946–2005), for years
one of America’s best-
utte City, California, is located in the Sacramento Valley between known defense attorneys,

B Princeton and Ord Bend. You won’t find buttes there, or bluffs, or
even mounds. It is also not a city. The state highway sign lists the
population at 291 and even that may be generous.
represented O.J. Simpson,
Michael Jackson, and Puff
Daddy (Sean Combs),
among many others. In the
The few people who do live in Butte City are mostly connected one
Simpson trial, Cochran’s
way or another to agriculture. Butte City has a gas station, now closed, a
blend of logic, rhetoric,
saloon, and what looks like a place for people to discard farming equip- and explanation—these
ment parts. Recently, however, someone opened another business, a tan- concepts are all examined
ning salon. in this book—resulted in
The prospects for a tanning business in Butte City do not seem an acquittal for his client.
bright. In the Sacramento Valley clouds are scarce, and the people who His closing statement, “If
live there tend to look for ways to get out of the sun. Deepening their it doesn’t fit, you must
tans seems an unlikely priority. acquit,” refers to the gloves
We humans are clever enough to land spacecraft on a moon of used as evidence against
Jupiter, combine genetic material to alter life forms, and build comput- Simpson in the trial. The
statement is a good
ers that outplay grand masters at chess, yet we sometimes make unwise
example of deductive logic,
decisions like opening a tanning salon in a tiny sun-baked farming com-
examined in detail in
munity. Despite the impressive accomplishments of the human intel- Chapters 7, 8, and 9.
lect, one frequently comes face to face with examples of faulty reasoning,
error, and misjudgment. Back when one of us lived in Cincinnati, he
knew someone named Ross, who used Vick’s VapoRub.
1
 Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

2 CHAPTER 1 CRITICAL THINKING BASICS

“About a tablespoon,” Ross would say. “It works. Eat that, your cold
disappears.”
Ross didn’t hold this theory up to rational scrutiny. The “Rub” part of
the name does not suggest an internal use, and when the container warns
against putting the product in your mouth, you can bet there is a reason for it.
Besides, colds eventually disappear on their own accord. Eat anything and your
cold disappears. Eat dirt and your cold disappears.
We humans are unique among animals in our ability to subject our
thoughts to rational scrutiny, and we would do well to take advantage of that
gift. Other animals don’t really have the knack, as far as we know. To offer
one example, in the height of the 2004 camping season, a black bear broke
into coolers belonging to campers at Baker Lake Resort in Washington. The
bear punctured and drank three dozen cans of Rainier beer, and then passed
out on the lawn. If a human had done this (one of our students, for example),
we’d cite it as an example of failing to think critically. But bears, as far as
anyone knows, are unable to think critically, so they can’t be faulted for not
doing so.*
This bear story illustrates other aspects of critical thinking. According to
the news reports, the bear first tried a can of Busch but drank less than half
the can and threw it away. It then ignored the remaining supply of Busch and
commenced on the available Rainier. This bear, in other words, was thinking,
making decisions, and even making discriminations worthy of a beer connois-
seur—it was exercising a preference. But it wasn’t acting either wisely or un-
wisely. It wasn’t thinking critically or failing to think critically. It was just
thinking. Critical thinking is more than just thinking or making decisions or
acting selectively.
Above all else, thinking critically means screening your ideas to see if
they really make sense. We shall be more precise about this in a moment, but
the thing about critical thinking that distinguishes it from other forms of
thinking is that if you aren’t doing it, you may end up wishing you had. Not
long ago we read about one Patrick Lawler, 23, a construction worker from
Littleton, Colorado, who accidentally shot himself in the head with his nail
gun. Although he said he felt like he had been hit with a bat, he didn’t realize
the gun had fired a 4-inch nail into his brain, a fact that came clear only when
an X-ray was taken several days later after he went to the dentist complaining
about a world-class toothache. Surgeons removed the nail, and Mr. Lawler ap-
parently is okay. Unfortunately, Lawler had decided not to buy medical insur-
ance, though he made enough to do so. This was very unwise, given the kind
of work he did. From time to time, all of us make poorly thought out deci-
sions like this—and not infrequently we regret it. Lawler’s medical bills top
$100,000, and he has no way to pay for them.**
If you are reading this book for a course, chances are you will be expected
to critique others’ ideas, and they will be asked to critique yours. Everyone
understands the importance of screening one’s own ideas for defects and defi-

*Wildlife agent Bill Heinck and other agents awakened the bear and tried to chase it from the campground, but the
animal climbed a tree and slept for four more hours. At that point, the agents managed to awaken the animal again
and shoo it away. Unfortunately, the next morning it returned. The agents then baited a large trap with doughnuts
and open cans of beer (Rainier), and captured the bear for relocation. Associated Press report, August 18, 2004.
**Associated Press report by Caroline Liss, January 21, 2005.
Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

CLAIMS 3

I Thinking critically, the photographer used remote control to shoot this gem.

ciencies (although we do not always do so), but many people draw a line when
it comes to subjecting the views of others to scrutiny. Doing this is sometimes
seen as a kind of personal attack. “Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion,”
you often hear it said. But critiquing another person’s ideas does not mean you
are attacking that person. It’s not a put-down. Pointing out reasons for not eat-
ing VapoRub isn’t insulting Ross; if anything it is trying to help him. Cases
arise in which it would be dead wrong not to criticize another person’s ideas.
Not long ago, we read about some teenagers who thought it would be neat to
wind a rope around a merry-go-round, then attach the other end to a pickup
truck and drive off at high speed while someone tried to hang on. They tried
it, and one person was hurled from the merry-go-round; afterward the driver
of the pickup faced a manslaughter charge. Was he entitled to his opinion that
this was a good idea? Of course not. Every one of us makes mistakes, and
sometimes we need others to help us see them. We don’t do a friend a favor by
pretending his idea to open a tanning salon in Butte City is a good one. And
we don’t do ourselves any favors by not listening to others or by refusing to
think critically about our own ideas.

CLAIMS
At this point, we need to introduce vocabulary. When you state a belief or
opinion (same thing), you are making a claim. When you present a reason for
thinking a claim is true, you are giving an argument. We’ll provide a more
technical definition in a moment, but an argument is what a prosecutor gives
a judge or jury to show that the defendant is guilty. It is what a parent gives
you when he or she tells you why you should do something, or if you are a
 Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

4 CHAPTER 1 CRITICAL THINKING BASICS

parent, what you give your own children. It is what a scientist says to support
a theoretical finding. It is what you give yourself when you justify taking some
course of action, or not taking it. An argument against opening a tanning salon
in Butte City is what the people who opened one may eventually wish they’d
considered. Whenever there is a breakdown in critical thinking, there is an
argument someone should have paid more attention to. Critical thinking re-
quires evaluating arguments that support the claims we are considering, and
weighing them against those that support alternative or contrary views.
One can critically examine (or fail to examine) claims about anything,
from how best to train a puppy to what type of gasoline to buy. You can criti-
cally examine claims about silly little issues, like which potato chip brand is
the best, to claims about very important things, like whether to invade an-
other country. Any claim you make, or are thinking of making, or are merely
considering, or someone else has made or wants you to make, is fair game.
Critical thinking consists of the rational evaluation of specific claims, includ-
ing weighing the arguments for and against them.
Some claims do not require much by way of critical evaluation; they may
be self-evident or indisputable on the face of things, or just plainly false. Ex-
tended investigation or deliberation isn’t required to determine if your throat
is sore or if Costco is still open; there is no need there to weigh arguments.
But other claims aren’t quite so tractable. You can provide your own examples,
but claims about what you should major in, how you should vote, whether a
practice is likely to have health consequences, and what to do in personal re-
lationships are all candidates for careful screening and critical evaluation, and
they represent only a handful of the many claims that require critical atten-
tion. Some people occupy offices where their decisions deeply affect others;
decisions of that sort perhaps require more scrutiny than any other.

ARGUMENTS
As we said, when you present a reason for thinking a claim is true, you give
an argument. Recently a student named Kevin asked one of us if we thought
brushing your teeth could really help you lose weight. Kevin had heard a
report about a study published in a Japanese scientific journal that said that
encouraging people to brush more frequently could help prevent obesity. Japa-
nese researchers had studied almost 4,000 people and found that people who
brushed three times a day were much more likely to be slender; and the stu-
dent concluded from this that brushing your teeth could help you lose weight.
When we looked up the media report of the Japanese study that’s what it had
concluded, too.
Now, you may not think of scientific data such as those contained in the
Japanese study as an “argument,” but here the data were given as a reason for
thinking that brushing could help you lose weight, so they count as an argu-
ment. As arguments go, this one actually is poor, but it is an argument never-
theless.* It is an argument because it is a reason for thinking some claim is
true. As you can see, an argument can be long and involved. Einstein didn’t

*We’ll get back to this very argument in Chapter 11, if we don’t forget. One obvious problem with this argument is
that people who brush frequently may be more health savvy or more concerned about their appearance and eat
moderately for those reasons.
Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

ARGUMENTS 5

I When you think critically, you weigh the pros and cons of an idea, which this person clearly didn’t.

just pull “E ⫽ mc2” out of his hat; he had complex theoretical reasons that
require a lot of mathematics and physics to comprehend, and together they
amounted to an argument that E ⫽ mc2.
At the other extreme, every professor has heard: “My grandmother just
died,” offered as an excuse for having missed class. Here again, something is
used as a reason for thinking something else is true, and that makes it an ar-
gument. My grandmother just died; therefore I should be excused for missing
class, is the reasoning. Arguments can be short and simple like this one, or
long and involved like Einstein’s, or anywhere in between. It’s not word count
that determines whether something is an argument, but function. If one claim
is given as a reason for thinking another claim is true, you have an argument;
if it isn’t, you don’t.
An unfortunage minor complication must be mentioned at this point.
Logicians think of an argument as including not merely the reason for think-
ing a claim is true, but also the claim itself. From this perspective an argu-
ment has two parts: the supported part, which is called the conclusion, and
the supporting part, which is called the premise. The premise of an argument,
in other words, specifies the reason (or reasons) for accepting the conclusion.
The statement “I should be excused because my grandmother just died” has
the required two-part structure. “My grandmother just died” is the premise,
and “I should be excused” is the conclusion.
And thus we arrive, finally, at a technical definition of the most impor-
tant ingredient in critical thinking. An argument consists of two parts, and
one part (the premise or premises) is supposedly a reason for thinking that the
other (the conclusion) is true. Critically thinking about a claim that is not
self-evidently or obviously true or false requires evaluating the arguments
both for and against it.
 Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

6 CHAPTER 1 CRITICAL THINKING BASICS

Does this mean this book is going to be about arguments? The answer is
yes; but there are numerous parameters, as you might guess from seeing how
big the book is.

OTHER CONCEPTS AND TERMS

Many bedrock concepts in this book use a vocabulary straight from ordinary
English. People have opinions, views, thoughts, beliefs, convictions, and ideas;
for our purposes these are the same. People may also express these opinions
and the like in statements, judgments, assertions, or—to use our preferred
word—claims. “Statement,” “judgment,” “assertion,” and “claim” all mean
the same thing for our purposes.
Whenever a claim is called into question or its truth or falsity becomes
the subject of consideration or judgment, an issue or question has been raised.
We use the terms “issue” and “question” interchangeably. For example, re-
cently the Virginia Senate considered making it illegal for kids (or maybe any-
one) to wear clothes that expose underwear. In other words, the claim “It should
be illegal to wear clothes that expose underwear” was under consideration;
whether it should become illegal to do that was the issue or question. When
you think critically about a claim, you call it into question, thus making it an
issue, and you weigh the arguments for and against, which is exactly what the
Virginia lawmakers did.* As we shall see, in many real-life situations it is an
important and sometimes difficult task to identify the claim that is in question.
Next, about truth: You may well wonder what sort of thing truth is, and
what sort of things facts are. We must leave these mysteries for your next phi-
losophy course. In a real-life situation, when people say a claim is true, they
are often just agreeing with it. Likewise, when they say a claim states a fact,
they are often just employing an alternative method of agreeing with it. Thus,
in real-life conversations, these four claims often serve the same purpose:

A book is on the table.

It is true that a book is on the table.
It is a fact that a book is on the table.
I agree; a book is on the table.

Knowledge is another important concept. We have to admit we don’t

know what knowledge is. However, you are entitled to say you know that a
claim, such as “There is a book on the table” is true, if (1) you believe there is
a book on the table, (2) you have an argument beyond a reasonable doubt for
thinking there is, and (3) you have no reason to think you are mistaken, such
as might be the case if you hadn’t slept for several nights or had recently taken
a large dose of some hallucinogenic drug.

SUBJECTIVISM
Right here at the start we need to discuss an idea that could puncture the hull
before the ship leaves port. This is the idea that one opinion is as good as the

*The bill passed the state House, but was dropped in the Senate. The argument deemed to carry the most weight was
that the bill made the legislature look silly. USA Today, February 11, 2005.
Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

SUBJECTIVISM 7

next, or that what is true is what you think is true. This concept is known as
subjectivism. If you have never heard anyone say “One opinion is as good as
the next,” or “It may not be true for you, but it’s true for me,” or “What is
true is what you think is true,” then it is only because you never took a phi-
losophy class and listened to your peers. Such assertions are quite common in
that setting—until the instructor explains what is wrong with them, as we
shall be doing shortly.
Obviously, if it is true that one opinion is as good as the next, there isn’t
much point in thinking critically about any opinion, since it already is as good
as any alternative. No need to go to school either since your opinion is already
as good as Einstein’s.
In fact, nobody is a subjectivist about everything, at least nobody is who
goes to the doctor. What would be the point in going to the doctor, if your
opinion is already as good as the doctor’s? Of course, you may not have an
opinion and are only going to the doctor to get one. But then why go to the
doctor and not a fortune teller or a friend, who will probably give you an opin-
ion for free? It’s also worth noting that if one opinion is as good as the next,
then the opinion that subjectivism is silly is as good as any contrary view.
At the same time, it’s quite right to be a subjectivist about certain mat-
ters. For example, does Miller Lite taste great? Well, one opinion about that is
as good as the next. If you think Miller tastes great, then that is true for you,
and there is no other truth to be considered. This is quite unlike “You have
Type A influenza,” which if you don’t have Type A influenza, is false no mat-
ter what you think. Somewhere in between “Miller tastes great” and “You
have Type A influenza” is where the controversy lies.
What is it that makes a concept subjective? The answer is that there are
expressions which we generally let people apply as they see fit. Countless ad-
jectives and adjectival phrases, adverbs and adverbial phrases, as well as
nouns, fall into this category. The category includes “soothing,” “cuddly,”
“terrifying” “great tasting” (and “great taste”), “super,” “slowly,” “carefully,”
“happy,” “happiness,” and so forth. Even here, it’s not the case that anything
goes: People would look at you oddly if you called the sound made by a jack-
hammer “soothing” or “sublime.” But some expressions obviously do not
work this way. You can’t call just anything a “car,” and you can’t use “weighs
more than one hundred pounds” according to your own private rules, and if
you are of the opinion that your Grand Marquis does not weigh more than one
hundred pounds, your opinion is incorrect.
Most everyone agrees that “tastes great” is purely subjective and that
“weighs more than one hundred pounds” is not subjective in the least. But
there are concepts that fall between these extremes. For example, consider
the concept of beauty and of being beautiful. You may have heard the expres-
sion that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. This statement expresses the
idea that beauty is subjective, that the beauty in an object is what the viewer
finds there; that if the mother finds her baby beautiful then she isn’t wrong
even if nobody agrees with her, and if nobody at all finds an object beautiful,
or if nobody at all has seen it, then it just isn’t beautiful. There are those, in
fact, who think that “art” is itself a subjective concept. However, while prob-
ably many lay people are subjectivists about beauty and art, many philoso-
phers of art (aestheticians) believe some aesthetic judgments are not subjective.
For example, when the children of one of the authors were in second grade,
they joined the school “orchestra.” It was a memorable event for the author;
 Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

8 CHAPTER 1 CRITICAL THINKING BASICS

there were all the sons and daughters of whom the parents were so proud with
their trumpets and flutes and so on, but the sound produced by the group was
remarkably unpleasant. This aesthetic judgment seems not entirely subjective.
A rough rule of thumb for telling if a claim is subjective is the “contra-
diction test.” If Sarah says “A” and Stanley says “Not-A,” must one of them
be mistaken? If not, that means the opposed claims are subjective. If Sarah
says Miller tastes great, and Stanley says “No, it doesn’t,” then you wouldn’t
say one must be mistaken. If Mom says the baby is gorgeous and another nods
and smiles while saying to himself, “Gad, what an ugly kid,” then you allow
them both to have their opinion. In these examples, “tastes great” as applied
to beer and “is gorgeous” as applied to the baby are subjective concepts.
If a claim is entirely subjective, it doesn’t require critical scrutiny to de-
termine if it is true. If you think “Miller tastes great,” then Miller tastes great
to you, end of discussion. There is a minor complication in the fact that there
is such a thing as a cultivated taste, and beer connoisseurs may well have stan-
dards to which they agree concerning what counts as a great taste in a beer.
But speaking broadly, most English speakers agree to let people apply “tastes
great” to beer as they think appropriate, which is to say that for most speak-
ers of English the concept is subjective.
Unfortunately, there is an important group of statements, called “value
judgments,” that many people assume are subjective. However, not every
value judgment is subjective, as we explain next.

VALUE JUDGMENTS
Recently, Paul Mitchell Systems, the largest privately owned shampoo com-
pany, launched a line of pet-grooming products. Each product is said to be
“tested on humans, so it’s safe for your pets.” One of us tried one of the sham-
poos on his dogs and it did work well. “It worked well” is what is called a
“value judgment.” The term is a widely used, nontechnical name for a state-
ment that expresses an evaluation of something. This particular value judg-
ment expresses a positive evaluation of the pet shampoo. “Tastes great” is a
favorable evaluation of Miller beer. “We should open a tanning business in
Butte City” is a value judgment that expresses a favorable evaluation of open-
ing a tanning business in Butte City. “George W. Bush is a better president than
even George Washington” is a positive value judgment about the president.
There are different kinds of value judgments, because we evaluate differ-
ent sorts of things. “That is a beautiful painting” is a positive aesthetic value
judgment. “Pea soup is best served cold” is a culinary value judgment that ex-
presses a positive evaluation of serving pea soup cold. “You should not invest
in real estate until after the bubble bursts” is a practical value judgment.
There are also value judgments that assign ethical/moral values to ob-
jects and actions. “Thou shalt not steal,” for example, is a moral value judg-
ment; it evaluates stealing as not a good thing, morally speaking. “Good for
you for helping that person to get across the street!” is a positive moral judg-
ment. Though the values expressed in these examples may seem obvious, it
can sometimes be difficult to determine what kind of value is expressed in a
particular value judgment.
Value judgments obviously include decisions that are among the most
important we make. Deciding how much support to contribute to an aging
Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

VALUE JUDGMENTS 9

parent, for example, is no trivial matter. Unfortunately, many people, includ-

ing many beginners in critical thinking, make a fundamental mistake about
value judgments: They uncritically assume that all value judgments are purely
subjective. For this reason, they are disinclined to subject any value judgment
to critical examination, believing that the value judgment is just a matter of
opinion, or that one opinion is as good as the next.
From an abstract point of view, it is easy to understand why people might
have the idea that morality is purely subjective. But when we are confronted
with a clear and real-life moral transgression, we instantly see a difference be-
tween moral value judgments and such judgments as “this beer tastes great.”
When Bill Clinton was president, three men who were members of an antigov-
ernment “militia” debated whether to fire rounds from high-powered rifles
into a huge propane tank south of Sacramento, California. The idea, as re-
ported in the press, was to cause death and destruction sufficient to start a
“revolution.” One of the men, thank goodness, balked at the idea and eventu-
ally prevailed on the others not to proceed with the plan.* Many things could
be said about this, but one thing you would not say is that the men who fa-
vored the plan and the man who didn’t were equally correct. The claim fails
the “contradiction test” we mentioned in the previous section.
To take another example, recently one John Russell Reed thought it
would be nice to shoot a 1,000 pound elk who was a descendant of a herd of
Rocky Mountain elk brought from Yellowstone to California in the 1960s. The
elk, named Big Daddy, spent most of its time grazing and sleeping in and
around the town of Bear Valley Springs in the Tehachapi Mountains and was,
apparently, as tame and sweet as an elk is ever likely to be. Reed simply walked
up to the harmless beast, which had no reason to be afraid, and shot it between
the eyes.** Was this wrong? Of course, it was wrong. There is a huge differ-
ence between the value judgments “It was wrong to shoot Big Daddy” and
“Miller tastes great.” There are commonly accepted standards of sportsman-
ship and humane treatment of animals, but there are no common standards set
for great taste in beer. What qualifies as humane treatment of animals is not as
sharply defined or as universally accepted as what qualifies as a house or car,
but whatever the standards are, shooting Big Daddy doesn’t measure up.
Now, in fact there seem to be commonly accepted standards not merely
of such things as sportsmanship and humane treatment of animals, but of
moral right and wrong and good and bad in general. It is true these standards,
though commonly accepted, are perhaps not universally accepted. Apparently,
there are people who think it is a mark of virtue to blow up propane tanks in
densely populated areas, but this doesn’t mean that whether or not it would
be good to do so is just a matter of opinion. In Chapter 12, we explain these
commonly accepted criteria of moral good and bad and right and wrong, and
discuss criteria that apply to aesthetic judgments as well. Meanwhile, you
should not reflexively dismiss a judgment as subjective or not worth serious
debate just because it is a value judgment.

*See the Anti-Defamation League’s Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network’s Web site at <www.adl.org/learn/
criminal_activity/Nov_01.asp>.
**Reported by Steve Hymon in the Los Angeles Times, February 11, 2005. See also One Bakersfield, December 16,
2004 <www.1bakersfield.com/news/read/2/10628>.
 Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

10 CHAPTER 1 CRITICAL THINKING BASICS

I This is Owen, a baby hippo.

When Owen’s mother washed out
to sea, Owen glommed on to this
giant turtle. Now Owen and his
foster parent are inseparable.
Do hippos think? Probably.
Do they think critically? Probably
not. The difference is explained in
this chapter.

BASIC CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

When you think critically about a belief/opinion, or more precisely about the
claim used to state it, the first order of business is to pinpoint what claim is
under consideration. Sounds easy, but we guarantee this can be tough sled-
ding. Claims can be vague, ambiguous, and obscure in other ways. In his inau-
gural address, President Warren G. Harding stated elegantly:

We have mistaken unpreparedness to embrace it to be a challenge of

the reality and due concern for making all citizens fit for participation
will give added strength of citizenship and magnify our achievement.

This is formidable. It is also meaningless. (American satirist H.L. Mencken

described it as a “sonorous nonsense driven home with gestures.”*) Under-
standing what is meant by a claim has so many aspects we are obliged to de-
vote an entire chapter to the subject. Socrates, the ancient Greek philosopher
hailed by the Delphic Oracle as the wisest of humans, said defining terms is
the first step toward wisdom. You will understand the truth in this when you
read Chapter 2.**
Then, there are different kinds of claims, and you must know what kind
of claim you are considering. “We should go to Ogata’s for dinner” looks a lot
like “We should bomb Iran” in that both are value judgments, but they are
different kinds of remarks, demanding different sorts of support. Merely iden-
tifying arguments poses its own special set of difficulties, because arguments
bear a superficial resemblance to other things; we’ll begin discussing this later
in this chapter. Many times when you might think a claim has been supported
by an argument, it hasn’t been supported at all. A goofy photo of the president
is not an argument, but if an opponent of the president pastes it in an article
about one of the president’s proposals, it might dispose a reader unfavorably
toward the proposal.
A lot of extraneous stuff—rhetorical flourishes, asides, tangents, and other
things—gets mixed in with arguments, and you need to sort through all of this
to find an actual argument. Once you find the argument, you then have to iden-

*Reported on NBC News “Meet the Press,” January 16, 2005.

**It isn’t that much of a stretch to say that ancient Greek philosophy generally boils down to defining terms.
Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

TWO KINDS OF GOOD ARGUMENT 11

In the Media

The Talk-Show Syndrome

Those of us in the lay community don’t reason that way; we don’t think in those terms
of logic; it doesn’t compute with us, that type of philosophical reasoning; we don’t care.
— Radio talk-show host BRUCE SESSIONS, summarizing his reaction to a logician
giving examples of illogical arguments from Rush Limbaugh
Our suspicions are confirmed.

tify the premises and conclusion. In addition, you need to recognize that there
are different kinds of arguments, and they involve different principles of evalu-
ation. We cover all these angles in this text, so this is not a short book.
Of course, there is no point in considering arguments for and against
a claim if you have no idea what would count toward its being true or false.
Take, for example, the claim “There is an identical you who lives in a differ-
ent dimension.” We have no idea at all what sort of evidence would count as
supporting this claim, and what sort of evidence would support saying the
claim is false. (Almost any claim about different “dimensions” or “planes” or
“parallel universes” is apt to suffer from the same problem.) “All is one”
would qualify as well. Philosopher Adolf Grunbaum’s famous example,
“Everything doubled in size last night” illustrates the point nicely too, as does
“There is an invisible gremlin in my watch.”
Claims problematic in this regard needn’t be so metaphysical, either. You
don’t know where to begin looking, for example, for evidence either for or
against “Americans aren’t thinking seriously these days.” Recently, we heard
Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa declare emphatically, “It is human nature to
desire freedom.” People do talk a lot about freedom and human nature, but it
is hard to know what kind of data would support or undermine Grassley’s
claim.
This is not to imply that only claims subject to scientific test or the ex-
perimental method are worth discussing. Sometimes claims are made in con-
texts in which it is not important they be true, as for example when one is
telling a joke. Even when truth is paramount, a scientific test may not be nec-
essary. Mathematical theorems aren’t confirmed via experimentation but
rather as deductions from other mathematical propositions. Appearing in the
Bible would count as proof of a statement if you believe the Bible is the re-
vealed word of God, though doubters might press you on that. The point is that
you need to have some idea about what counts for or against a claim’s truth if
you are to entertain it seriously, or if you expect others to take it seriously.

TWO KINDS OF GOOD ARGUMENT

Logicians recognize two kinds of good argument: A good “deductive” argu-
ment and a good “inductive” argument. Before we explain these arguments,
we should point out that the distinction between the two is second nature to
instructors of critical thinking, and it is easy for them (and for us) to some-
times forget that it is new to many people. In addition, within just a few pages
 Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

12 CHAPTER 1 CRITICAL THINKING BASICS

we have already brought up several new ideas, including “critical think-

ing,” “claim,” “argument,” “premise,” “conclusion,” “value judgment,” “sub-
jective claim,” “issue,” and more. This is quite a load, so don’t worry if you
don’t understand the distinction immediately. In Chapter 7 we will go into
more detail about arguments, and will return to the distinction we are about
to present. Your instructor may even wish to wait until then to go into the
matter in depth.

Deductive Arguments
The first type of good argument, a good deductive argument, is said to be
“valid.” That’s an argument whose premises being true would mean necessar-
ily that the conclusion is true. For example, our student, Josh Fulcher, lives in
Alaska; that means necessarily that Josh Fulcher lives in the United States.
“Josh Fulcher lives in Alaska; therefore Josh Fulcher lives in the United
States” is an example of a deductive argument. “Josh Fulcher is taller than his
wife, and his wife is taller than his son; therefore Josh Fulcher is taller than
his son” is another example.

Inductive Arguments
The second type of good argument, a good inductive argument, is said to be
“strong.” That’s an argument whose premises being true would mean that
probably the conclusions are true. “Josh Fulcher lives in Alaska; therefore he
buys a lot of mosquito repellant.” That’s a strong inductive argument. Living
in Alaska makes it probable that he buys lots of mosquito repellant, but it
doesn’t mean that necessarily he does so. “Not many people live in Butte City
and those who do already spend a lot of time in the sun; therefore a tanning
business won’t do well there” is also a strong inductive argument: The prem-
ises being true make it probable that the conclusions are true, but certainly
don’t mean necessarily that it is true.
As you can see, valid deductive arguments prove or demonstrate their
conclusion; strong inductive arguments merely support their conclusion.
That’s as deep as we need to go at this point; determining whether a deductive
argument is valid and whether an inductive argument is strong will take up
separate chapters later in the book.

RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS
Critical thinking requires evaluating arguments for and against a claim, but,
as we said above, it isn’t always easy to recognize an argument as such. Extra-
neous elements frequently work their way into arguments, confusing matters.
Plus, other things can be mistaken for arguments. Not every sequence of state-
ments is an argument.

The Two Parts of an Argument

As we said, an argument, whether deductive or inductive, has two parts, and
one part is presented as a reason for believing the other part is true. The cardi-
nal rule of argument identification is, therefore, elementary. You need at least
two claims, and the word “therefore” or an equivalent must stand, either ex-
plicitly or implicitly, before one of them. “He said and she said and then I said
Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS 13

and he goes and I am like, etc., etc.” is not an argument, or not usually so; the
support/demonstration relationship is lacking. “This happened and that hap-
pened and that other thing happened,” might be an argument, but only if it re-
ally means “This happened and that happened; therefore that other thing
happened.” For example, “The murder happened in the sitting room and
Colonel Mustard was not in the sitting room at the time; therefore, Colonel
Mustard did not commit the murder” is an argument.
Unfortunately, often the word “therefore” is left unstated, as in “Miller
tastes great; we should get some.” Also, unfortunately, a premise or even the
conclusion can be left unstated. You will get much practice later identifying
arguments, so we won’t labor things here. The all-important point is: An ar-
gument consists of two parts, one of which (the premise or premises) demon-
strates or supports the other part (the conclusion). If you are using a yellow
highlighter to mark sentences in this book, you should already have high-
lighted a sentence to this effect.

The Language of Arguments

What are the other words and phrases that work like “therefore” to indicate a
conclusion is about to be expressed? They include:

I It follows that . . .
I This shows that . . .
I Thus . . .
I Hence . . .
I Consequently . . .
I Accordingly . . .
I So . . .
I My conclusion is . . .

Unfortunately, some of these phrases have other uses than as conclusion indi- I Critical thinking often
cators, but one can usually assume that what follows them is the conclusion requires careful reading—of
of an argument. situations as well as signs.
In addition to conclusion-indicating words
are premise-indicators, words that often indicate
a premise is about to be stated:

I Since . . .
I For . . .
I Because . . .
I In view of . . .
I This is implied by . . .
I Given . . .

For example, the premise of “We shouldn’t open

a tanning salon because people in Butte City al-
ready get more sun than they want” is the phrase
that follows the word “because.”
 Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

14 CHAPTER 1 CRITICAL THINKING BASICS

On Language

Doing Things with Words

You should not get the idea from this chapter that the only important thing you can do with
words is make claims or take positions on issues. You can do lots of other important things:
You can hypothesize, conjecture, suppose, and propose. You can amuse or entertain. You can
try to persuade others (or yourself) of something or attempt to get them (or you) to do some-
thing. We use words to pray, promise, praise, and promote; to lie, deceive, insult, and humili-
ate; to excuse, comfort, and let off steam; and so on indefinitely. (Sometimes we don’t know
what we are up to when we use words.) All these things are subject to critical thinking as to
success, efficacy, completeness, legitimacy, authenticity, originality, clarity, and many other
qualities. In this book, however, we focus primarily on claim-making and argument-presenting
functions of discourse and, to a lesser extent, on hypothesizing and conjecturing functions.
Here are some examples of a few of the many different things people do with words:
Red meat is not bad for you. Now blue-green meat, that’s bad for you.
— TOMMY SMOTHERS, amusing us
I want to rush for 1,000 or 1,500 yards, whichever comes first.
— New Orleans Saints running back GEORGE ROGERS, expressing a desire
I enjoyed reading your book and would look forward to reading something else you wrote if required
to do so.
— E-mail from one of our students; we’d like to think this is praise, but . . .
Do not take this medication within two hours of eating.
— Caution note on some gunk one of us had to drink. It’s warning us, but
notice that you can’t tell if you’re not supposed to take the medication
within two hours before eating or within two hours after eating or both.
Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the world, I can’t help but cry. I mean,
I’d love to be skinny like that but not with all those flies and death and stuff.
— MARIAH CAREY, expressing compassion
They know so little science that they don’t realize how ridiculous they look to others.
— MARILYN VOS SAVANT, offering her explanation of why people claim to be psychic
It’s due to the country’s mixed ethnicity.
— National Rifle Association president CHARLTON HESTON, explaining the country’s high
murder rate and making it clear he may not know too much about the subject
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
— BILL CLINTON, telling a fib
Osama bin Laden is either alive and well or alive and not too well or not alive.
— Defense Secretary DONALD RUMSFELD; beats us

Again, to repeat, many arguments don’t contain indicator words; you just
have to pay attention to whether a passage is an attempt to support or demon-
strate something. We provide several exercises at the end of this chapter to
help you learn to identify arguments.

TWO CONFUSIONS ABOUT ARGUMENTS

Difficulties in identifying arguments are compounded by two important con-
fusions: (1) that arguments are the same as explanations, and (2) that argu-
ments are attempts to persuade someone of something.
Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

TWO CONFUSIONS ABOUT ARGUMENTS 15

Arguments and Explanations

You are sure to remember that Patrick Lawler had a world-class toothache be-
cause he had a 4-inch nail in his brain. This is an explanation of why he had a
toothache; it gives the cause of the problem. By contrast, “Patrick Lawler
should have carried insurance because now he can’t pay his bills” is an argu-
ment, not an explanation. For various reasons, people often confuse arguments
and explanations. Let’s put the two sentences about Patrick Lawler side by
side, and compare them again.

“Patrick Lawler had a toothache “Patrick Lawler should have

because he had a nail in his carried medical insurance because
head” now he can’t pay his medical bills.”

Both statements say, “X because Y.” But remember, an argument has two
parts, and one part (the premise) provides a reason for thinking the other part
(the conclusion) is true. The sentence on the right above is indeed an argu-
ment, because “he can’t pay his medical bills” provides a reason for thinking
it is true that Patrick Lawler should have had medical insurance. By contrast,
in the sentence on the left, the part that says “he had a nail in his head” is not
given as a reason for thinking that “Patrick Lawler had a toothache.” Patrick
Lawler doesn’t need a reason for thinking he had a toothache, and neither do
we, if he tells us he has one. “He had a nail in his head” states the cause of
the headache, and is not offered as proof that Patrick Lawler had one.
Basically, an argument attempts to support or prove a conclusion, while
an explanation specifies what caused something or how it works or what it is
made out of and so forth. Arguing that a dog has fleas is quite different from
explaining what caused the fleas. Arguing that violent crime has increased is
different from explaining what caused it to increase. Offering an explanation
of Dutch elm disease is entirely different from trying to prove that your expla-
nation is correct. Explanations and arguments are different things. However,
they are easily confused, and we include an exercise that will help you keep
them straight.

Arguments and Persuasion

“The environment needs George W. Bush like farmers need drought.” We
heard somebody say this who was trying to persuade an audience that George
W. Bush had a bad environmental record. The remark, however, is not an ar-
gument; it’s just a statement that portrays Bush in a bad light. Now, some
writers define an argument as an attempt to persuade somebody of something.
This is not correct. An argument attempts to prove or support a conclusion.
When you attempt to persuade someone, you attempt to win him or her to
your point of view; trying to persuade and trying to argue are logically distinct
enterprises. True, when you want to persuade somebody of something, you
might use an argument. But not all arguments attempt to persuade, and many
attempts to persuade do not involve arguments. In fact, giving people an argu-
ment is often one of the least effective methods of persuading many people—
which, of course, is why so few advertisers bother with arguments. People
notoriously are persuaded by the flimsiest of arguments and sometimes are
unfazed by even quite good arguments. Propaganda, for example, is an effec-
tive means of persuasion. Flattery has been known to work, too.
 Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

16 CHAPTER 1 CRITICAL THINKING BASICS

Real Life

The Greatest President?

According to a CNN poll, 66 percent of registered Republicans think George W. Bush is a greater
president than George Washington.

We have two purposes in this box. The first is to call your attention once again to the way
images can affect people. A photo is not an argument; it is not even a statement. Neverthe-
less, coupling a goofy photo of George W. Bush with a stately photograph of George Wash-
ington serves to ridicule the idea that Bush could be considered as great as Washington.
The second is to call attention to this: For some reason, “The greatest president” doesn’t
feel quite as subjective as “The greatest beer.” If one person says Bush is the greatest presi-
dent and another person says Washington is, we are not entirely comfortable saying “They
both can be correct.” The difference is that “the greatest” when applied to beer has fewer
restrictions on its use than does “the greatest” when applied to U.S. presidents. We allow
people to apply “the greatest” to beer almost entirely as they see fit. However, there are at
least a few commonly accepted standards of presidential greatness.

RELEVANCE, RHETORIC, AND KEEPING A CLEAR HEAD

Another difficult aspect to thinking critically about claims and arguments is
the need to identify and weed out extraneous considerations. Mom’s opinions
are bound to carry extra weight just because she is Mom. They may even carry
more weight than the opinions of experts in the subject. It is a fact of life that
we are influenced in our thinking by considerations that, logically, are beside
the point; a speaker’s relationship to us is just one example.
Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

RELEVANCE, RHETORIC, AND KEEPING A CLEAR HEAD 17

There is, for another example, our friend and former colleague Professor
B., who spoke with a fine English accent and wore woolens and tweed and
smoked a pipe. No matter what Professor B. talked about, he sounded authori-
tative; when he spoke, you tended to take notes. Now, it is easy to base esti-
mates of expertise on factors like accent or dress that usually are irrelevant,
and to transform a favorable opinion about a person into a positive judgment
about what he or she says. This, of course, is exactly why advertisers show
people you admire or like using their products, so you will transfer the feeling
to the product. So you have to be careful to evaluate claims, just as you would
products, on their merits and not on the merits of the person advocating for it.
Obviously, it’s not just positive feelings about people that may be trans-
ferred to their claims and arguments. It is very easy to downgrade what some-
one says if he or she seems nervous or shifty or stumbles over words. We know
two sisters; one smiles and makes eye contact, and the other tends to not look
you in the face and doesn’t smile as much. Both sisters are honest and intelli-
gent, and probably both are equally knowledgeable about things. We might
expect the first sister to be the more successful salesperson, and it wouldn’t
be surprising if people tended to take her claims more seriously, too. After all,
there is a reason speaking coaches encourage eye contact and smooth deliv-
ery. We remember a recent TV ad for a deodorant, in which a football coach
warns against “letting them see you sweat,” the point apparently being that
looking self-confident helps keep the troops from doubting you.
Comparing claims with consumer items leads us to another type of ex-
traneous consideration that has to be identified and weeded out when you
evaluate claims and arguments. Advertisers sell products not only by having
them used or endorsed by people you like or who look authoritative, but also
by describing the products in language that enhances their attractiveness. Dog
food manufacturers lately are covering bags with mouth-watering assertions
about natural ingredients, whole grains, freshness, and so forth, along with
pictures of fresh lean meat and vegetables, as if dogs even liked carrots. As it
is with dog food, so it is with claims and arguments. People dress up what
they say with rhetoric—language that has psychological force but carries no
extra weight logically. A president, for example, may support a call to arms
with stirring “arguments” about freedom and democracy and saving the world
from Armageddon. John Kennedy’s famous line, “Ask not what your country
can do for you, ask rather what you can do for your country” is really just “Do
volunteer work” in a rhetorically pretty package.
One must be especially alert to negative rhetoric. Newt Gingrich, a for-
mer Republican Congressperson and Speaker of the House, advised Republi-
cans to use the words “extreme,” “traitor,” and “treasonous” when referring
to Democrats or their proposals. Words can inflame passions, and make it dif-
ficult to evaluate ideas on their merits. The emotional associations of words
is a constant obstacle to an objective and neutral assessment of ideas; it is dif-
ficult to see beyond the rhetoric to the core idea being stated. Negative politi-
cal advertising is very common, presumably because it is effective.
Although psychological and emotional coloration is the staple of dema-
goguery, it is present as well when good and decent people honestly state their
opinions. After all, there is nothing wrong with presenting your views in the
best light or in trying to be as persuasive as possible. But as consumers of
thoughts and ideas, we must refine our ability to distinguish between the
 Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

18 CHAPTER 1 CRITICAL THINKING BASICS

thought itself and the psychological packing in which it is given to us. Be-
cause of the difficulties here, we devote three full chapters to this and closely
related topics.
One also must be wary of claims that are accompanied by photographs
and other images, because images, just like rhetoric, can elicit powerful emo-
tions. Political advertising, for example, basically boils down to images and
rhetoric, and the two can make a witches’ brew of persuasion. We will have
an opportunity to comment more on this in later chapters.

A WORD ABOUT THE EXERCISES

For some reason, tennis doesn’t seem as popular as it once did. Nevertheless,
ace tennis players probably are every bit as good as they once were. To get
good at tennis, or any other skill, you have to practice, practice, and practice
more. It’s the same way with critical thinking, and that’s why we provide so
many exercises. For some of the exercises, there is no such thing as only one
correct answer, just as there is no such thing as only one correct way to serve
a tennis ball. Some answers, however—just like tennis serves—are better than
others, and that is where your instructor comes in. In many exercises, answers
you give that are different from your instructor’s are not necessarily incorrect.
Still, your instructor’s answers most likely will be well thought out, reliable,
and worth your attention. We recommend you take advantage of your instruc-
tor’s experience to improve your ability to think critically.
By the way, answers to the exercise items marked with a triangle are
found in the answer section (look for the colored edges) at the back of the
book. You’ll also find an occasional comment, tip, suggestion, joke, or buried
treasure map back there.

Recap According to a recent news report, one Emerson Moore, no relation to the au-
thor, was arrested for drunk driving in Muhlenberg Township, Pennsylvania,
and then was released on bail. Later, when he returned for his court hearing,
he got into a heated discussion with an officer outside the courtroom. The of-
ficer perceived that Moore was again under the influence and arrested him for
being intoxicated in public. “Whatever were you thinking, showing up here
like that?” asked Justice Dean R. Patton.*
Whatever Moore was thinking, he wasn’t thinking critically. Thinking
critically means screening your beliefs to see if they really make sense, and
instead of doing that, Moore reminded the judge that when the judge released
Moore on bail he had told Moore “You can drink at home.”
Beliefs are expressed in claims, and critical thinking, a bit more precisely
expressed, requires evaluating and weighing the arguments for and against the
claims that express our beliefs. Moore’s argument for showing up drunk at his
hearing for drunk driving (i.e., for the claim that there was nothing wrong with
his doing so) was that the judge had told him he could drink at home, by which

*Associated Press report, September 15, 2004.

 Moore−Parker: Critical 1. Critical Thinking Basics Text © The McGraw−Hill
Thinking, Eighth Edition Companies, 2007

EXERCISES 19

the judge meant, be intoxicated only at home. The argument against showing
up drunk (i.e., for the claim that there was something wrong with his doing
so) is what happened when Moore tried his argument out on the judge. Justice
Patton waived Moore’s bail, had him incarcerated, and Moore now faces a
charge of public intoxication to go along with the drunk driving charge.
In addition to “critical thinking” and “claim,” the important terminol-
ogy in the chapter includes:

I Argument: a two-part structure of claims, one part of which (the premise

or premises) is given as a reason for thinking the other part (the con-
clusion) is true
I Issue/Question: what is raised when a claim is called into question
I Valid deductive argument: an argument whose premises being true means
that necessarily the conclusion is true
I Strong inductive argument: an argument whose premises being true
means that probably the conclusion is true
I Subjective expression: an expression which by common agreement is left
up to the individual to apply as he or she thinks is appropriate, within cer-
tain broad constraints
I Subjectivism: the idea that any opinion is as good as the next, or that what
is true is what you believe is true
I Value judgment: a claim that expresses an evaluation of something
I Moral value judgment: a claim that expresses a moral or ethical
evaluation of something
I Rhetoric: language that is psychologically persuasive but does not have
extra logical force

In addition, we mentioned important mistakes that can be obstacles to think-

ing critically.

I To reflexively suppose that all value judgments are subjective

I To confuse arguments with explanations
I To confuse argument with persuasion
I To confuse rhetorical or psychological force with logical force, and to
think that a psychologically more persuasive argument must be a better
argument logically

Exercise 1-1 Exercises

Answer the questions based on your reading of Chapter 1, including the boxes.

L 1. What is an argument?
2. T or F: A claim is what you use to state an opinion or a belief.
3. T or F: Critical thinking involves attacking other people.
L 4. T or F: Whether a passage contains an argument depends on how long it is.